Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:49:00.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Simplicity and Defeasibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Evan Fales
Evan Fales*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theoretical simplicity is difficult to characterize, and evidently can depend upon a number of distinct factors. One such desirable characteristic is that the laws of a theory have relatively few “counterinstances” whose accommodation requires the invocation of a ceteris paribus condition and ancillary explanation. It is argued that, when one theory is reduced to another, such that the laws of the second govern the behavior of the parts of the entities in the domain of the first, there is a characteristic gain in simplicity of the sort mentioned: while I see no way of quantitatively measuring the “amount” of defeasibility of the laws of a theory, microreduction can be shown to decrease that “amount.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 273 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Ackermann, R. “Inductive Simplicity.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 152–164.10.1086/287796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Barker, S. “On Simplicity in Empirical Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 172–177.10.1086/287797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Bunge, M. “The Weight of Simplicity in the Construction and Assaying of Scientific Theories.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 120–149.10.1086/287794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Causey, R. L. “Attribute-Identities in Microreductions.” Journal of Philosophy 69 (1972): 407–422.10.2307/2024853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Good, I. J. “Corroboration, Explanation, Evolving Probability, Simplicity and a Sharpened Razor.” British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968): 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Goodman, N. “Safety, Strength, Simplicity.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 150–151.10.1086/287795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Hesse, M. The Structure of Scientific Inference, Chapter 10. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1974.10.1525/9780520313316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Kripke, S. “Naming and Necessity.” In Semantics of Natural Language, 2nd ed. Edited by Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, Synthese Library. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972. pp. 253–355.10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Putnam, H. “The Mental Life of Some Machines.” Intensionality, Minds, and Perception. Edited by Castaneda, Hector-Neri. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967. pp. 177–213.Google Scholar
[10] Rudner, R. “An Introduction to Simplicity.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 109–119.10.1086/287793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Schaffner, K. F. “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1967): 137–147.10.1086/288137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Schaffner, K. F. “Einstein Versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Theory Evaluation.” British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 25 (1974): 45–78.10.1093/bjps/25.1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Schlesinger, G. “The Problem of the Simple Hypothesis.” American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1967): 152–158.Google Scholar
[14] Sklar, L. “Types of Intertheoretic Reduction.” British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 18 (1968): 109–124.10.1093/bjps/18.2.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar